Search saved memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that previews are returned by default and that memory_get is the path to expand a single result. This goes beyond the schema's 'full' parameter description by adding the pointer to memory_get, which clarifies the intended interaction flow. It lacks explicit side-effect notes, but the read-only nature is implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, first front-loads the core purpose and method, second adds a crucial behavioral note about previews and the alternative. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: how to search, what to expect (previews), and how to get full results (memory_get). It doesn't detail the return structure, but the mention of 'id' implies results include identifiers, which is sufficient for usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'full' is described). The description partially compensates by indicating that 'query' performs substring matching and 'tag' filters by tag, which adds meaning beyond the parameter names. However, it doesn't clarify formats, case sensitivity, or how parameters combine, leaving room for ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('saved memory facts') and the search method ('by substring and/or tag'). It also differentiates from siblings by noting that previews are returned by default and that memory_get expands one by id, which distinguishes it from memory_list and memory_get.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the tool's role (searching memory facts) and provides a clear usage boundary: previews by default, and for full expansion use memory_get. This gives context on when to use this tool versus memory_get, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like memory_list or search_code.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.